Google Launches YouTube Newswire To Verify Eyewitness Videos 22
An anonymous reader writes: YouTube has started a video news service to showcase the most interesting clips recorded and posted by eyewitnesses at events unfolding around the world. In partnership with the social news group Storyful, YouTube Newswire will be "a curated feed of the most newsworthy eyewitness videos of the day, which have been verified by Storyful's team of editors," a blog post said. Cnet reports: "In addition to the newswire, YouTube on Thursday announced two other projects that have to do with eyewitness journalism. One of the projects, called the First Draft Coalition, will serve as an educational resource for journalists — helping them to verify eyewitness videos and consider the ethics of using them in stories. The other is a partnership with the Witness Media Lab, focused on eyewitness videos having to do with human rights issues."
Do Not Want (Score:3)
Officially vetted videos will become the only place most journalists will look, and a way to effectively help bury stories inconvenient to the establishment, under NSL so they can't tell us.
Re:Do Not Want (Score:4, Interesting)
How about you round up a million or two people and park yourselves around the government buildings until they change?
Because the water cannons and the sound cannons and microwave cannons and tear gas and bean bag guns and so on come out long before the change. Take a look at what happens to the WTO protests here every time. Barely reported, massive military-style response.
Re: (Score:1)
Officially vetted videos will become the only place most journalists will look,[...]
If "they" use Youtube for "news sources" they're not journalists - so I struggle to follow your logic. Unless you call Fox and the Murdock Press (gang) news.
I live in a capitalist country - we vote with our wallet. I don't view publications that scrape from the internet's - it seems kind of redundant.
Are you sure those are happy pills you've been gobbling?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't view publications that scrape from the internet
publications that scrape from the internet's
The internet's what?
Are you sure those are happy pills you've been gobbling?
I will let this easy one go.
Re: (Score:2)
[stupid reply]
Now there's a surprise.
Hint for the thick. News publications. By definition that doesn't include sites that publish a rehash of the same "information" that lined the cockie cage last week. Like /.
Irony. Alanis Morrisette is not the only American who doesn't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
under NSL so they can't tell us.
National Security Letters can't give arbitrary instructions to suppress information. The law defines NSLs quite precisely. They are a form of subpoena and therefore can only be used to request information, with the additional constraint that the recipient of the NSL cannot tell anyone that the NSL was received or the information was provided. In addition, NSLs can only be used to request metadata, not content.
Maybe I'm not clever enough, but I can't think of any way that an NSL could be used to suppress
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not clever enough, but I can't think of any way that an NSL could be used to suppress stories. One could be used to demand information about who looked at stories, and Google wouldn't be able to tell anyone that the list of watchers was provided, but it couldn't be used to force the story offline.
Only stories about NSLs.
There's also the possibility that the government is issuing secret gag orders which aren't so limited, but we have no evidence of that.
There would be no point to it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not clever enough, but I can't think of any way that an NSL could be used to suppress stories. One could be used to demand information about who looked at stories, and Google wouldn't be able to tell anyone that the list of watchers was provided, but it couldn't be used to force the story offline.
Only stories about NSLs.
I don't even think it's true. The NSL gag order applies to the recipient of the NSL, not the whole world. So Google couldn't use this service to distribute information about NSLs sent to Google, but they couldn't do that anyway.
There's also the possibility that the government is issuing secret gag orders which aren't so limited, but we have no evidence of that.
There would be no point to it yet.
Fair enough.
Still human control (Score:2)
It will still be a human making a decision as to what is newsworthy and what is not. Crowd-vetting could be an option too?
How does it deal with bias? (Score:1)
How does this service deal with bias?
Let me give you an example of what I mean. There's a curated news web site known as SoylentNews. Its news is submitted by its readers. There is a team of editors who read over the submissions, and put selected ones onto the site's main page. It's like an amateurish version of /., if you can imagine that.
One huge problem there is that many of the submitted stories are riddled with very obvious bias. For instance, there are a number of frequent contributors with extremist
Re: (Score:3)
How does this service deal with bias?
Flawed logic?
Q. How do you determine a biased news service? A. Be a discerning reader/viewer.
Q. How do you deal with a biased news service? A. You don't - it just encourages them. Redirect your views to an unbiased news service. (watching Fox and reading the Murdock press only makes them worse).
Outsourcing responsibility is the mother of all stupidity i.e. if you rely on "news" to give an impartial and balanced insight into world events you just might be doing it wrong. Complaining about them is like com
Re: (Score:2)
Q. How do you determine a biased news service? A. Be a discerning reader/viewer.
Right!
Q. How do you deal with a biased news service? A. You don't - it just encourages them. Redirect your views to an unbiased news service.
Oooh ... There's no such thing, at least while humans are still involved. But see also #1!
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh ... There's no such thing, at least while humans are still involved.[...]
True. In fact I enjoy a little bias - in favor of facts. "News" publications like the Murdock Press aren't biased in favor of facts.
All hail the Google party (Score:1)
“We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?”
Liveleak killer? (Score:2)
baaaannned.... (Score:2)
well dang, this is gonna get google banned in a few more countries that have human rights abuse issues and corrupt governments... with the possible exception of america, where google would fight tooth and nail to stop that happening. instead i suspect they'll work quite hard to twist what the definition of "verified editorial" is - most likely by deploying operatives within the team. this is gonna be fuun!